Marriage changes will alter much more, advocate says

COALITION for Marriage spokesman Dr David van Gend has told a conference in Brisbane if same-sex marriage passes into law Australia’s religious leaders would be intimidated “with the relentless threat of anti-discrimination lawsuits”.

“Traditional moral teaching will become something to be whispered in private,” Dr van Gend (pictured), addressing the Spirit in the City conference, said.

With the national same-sex marriage postal ballot still running, the Toowoomba general practitioner and author of Stealing from a Child: The Injustice of “Marriage Equality”, said changing the meaning of marriage would change many other things.

“It changes what our children are taught in school, as we have seen overseas,” Dr van Gend said.

“In the USA, Rob and Robin Wirthlin were told by the courts they had ‘no right’ to take their child out of classes that promoted homosexual issues, since gay marriage was now the law of the land,” Dr van Gend said.

“In the UK, Vishnitz Jewish girls’ primary school faces closure if it does not agree to teach about gender reassignment and homosexuality.

“The school had no problem prior to gay marriage becoming law.

“In Canada, the Alberta education department imposed gender fluidity policies on all schools, specifying that boys must be free to wear the uniform of their choice, play in girls’ sports teams and use girls’ bathrooms.

“And that makes sense. If male and female does not matter in marriage, why should male and female matter anywhere?

“Vote for gay marriage and you get programs like ‘Safe Schools’ on steroids.”

Dr van Gend said changing the definition of marriage would also change what could be said freely in public.

“Six years ago, I was taken to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission for arguing, in an article requested by The Courier-Mail, that it was wrong to let two men marry since that meant future children would have to miss out on a mother,” he said.

“I was successful in that case, in part because I had the marriage law on my side. I doubt I would be so fortunate if the law were to change.”

Dr van Gend also referred to last month’s “No” campaign rally at the University of Queensland, at which a gay student, Wilson, spoke out against gay marriage and was shouted down and abused as a “homophobe”.

Dr van Gend said a same-sex marriage law would “strike the shepherds, and the sheep will be scattered” – referring to the moral voice of priests, pastors and rabbis.

“It will intimidate religious leaders (and their insurers) with the relentless threat of anti-discrimination lawsuits; traditional moral teaching will become something to be whispered in private,” he said.

Dr van Gend claimed that, for serious gay activists, “marriage equality” was not about marriage but about power – “the power to impose their ideology on the next generation and the power to police what we may think and say”.

“It’s not about equality either, because there is actually no discrimination against same-sex couples under Australian law,” he said.

“Since 2008, gay couples have had full relationship equality with man-woman couples.

“By voting ‘Yes’ we don’t change a gay couple’s legal status but we give activists new power over our families and our freedoms.”

Dr van Gend urged Australians who had not yet cast a postal vote to consider the consequences for their family, their faith and their freedoms.

“If you don’t want your kids subjected to LGBT sex and gender programs and you don’t want to give the thought police an even bigger truncheon, then you have a precious opportunity to vote ‘No’,” he said.